South Capitol Street

Guest blogger Andy Rowell of Oil Change International, in a WonkRoom cross-post.

We are on the path to climate chaos, Big Oil has admitted. Both BP and Exxon have conceded that progress on climate change is totally insufficient to stabilize CO2 emissions. Both oil companies have just published their Energy Outlooks, and the outlook looks grim.

In a bleak prognosis for success on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, BP admits in its new Energy Outlook 2030 report, which was published yesterday, that global CO2 emissions from energy will grow an average of 1.2 percent a year through 2030. In total, BP’s chief economist Christof Ruehl predicts “to the best of our knowledge,” CO2 emissions will rise by 27 percent over the next two decades, meaning an increase of about 33bn tons. All this does not bode well for climate change, with even Bob Dudley calling the scenarios a “wake-up call“:

I need to emphasize that this is a projection, not a proposition. It is our dispassionate view of what we believe is most likely to happen on the basis of the evidence. For example, we are not as optimistic as others about progress in reducing carbon emissions. But that doesn’t mean we oppose such progress. As you probably know, BP has a 15 year record of calling for more action from governments, including the wide application of a carbon price. Our base case assumes that countries continue to make some progress on addressing climate change, based on the current and expected level of political commitment. But overall, for me personally, it is a wake-up call, not something any of us would like to see happening.

BP’s estimate is just higher than ExxonMobil, which believes that CO2 emissions will increase by 25 percent in 20 years, which, according to John Vidal, writing in The Guardian, in effect dismisses “hopes that runaway climate change can be arrested and massive loss of life prevented.”

These projections by BP and Exxon scientists are even gloomier the projections of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which projectst that energy-related CO2 emissions will “grow by 16 percent from 2009 to 2035.” Exxon argues that oil will still be king in 2030:

In 2030, fossil fuels remain the predominant energy source, accounting for nearly 80 percent of demand. Oil still leads, but natural gas moves into second place on very strong growth of 1.8% a year on average, particularly because of its position as a favored fuel for power generation. Other energy types – particularly nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels – will grow sharply, albeit from a smaller base. Nuclear and renewable fuels will see strong growth, particularly in the power-generation sector. By 2030, about 40 percent of the world’s electricity will be generated by nuclear and renewable fuels.

BP too has demand for fossil fuels rising: BP’s “base case” — or most likely projection — points to primary energy use growing by nearly 40 percent over the next twenty years, with 93% of the growth coming from non-OECD countries. The BP report argues that world energy growth over the next twenty years is expected to be dominated by emerging economies such as China, India, Russia and Brazil. Natural gas is also expected to be the fastest growing fossil fuel, with coal and oil losing market share as fossil fuels as a whole experience a slow decline in growth, falling from 83 percent to 64 percent. Coal will increase by 1.2 percent per year and by 2030 it is likely to provide virtually as much energy as oil, excluding biofuels.

There is some good news that energy diversification will continue. Between 2010 to 2030 the contribution to energy growth of renewables (solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels) is seen to increase from 5 to 18 percent.

What oil there is left is predominantly under OPEC control. OPEC’s share of global oil production is set to increase to 46%, a position not seen since 1977, the decade that saw the cartel preside over a series of oil shocks and shortages. In fact, 75 percent of all growth in oil reserves over the next two decades is expected to come from OPEC nations, which include Kuwait, Iran, Angola, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Nigeria.

– Andy Rowell writes for Oil Change International’s Price of Oil.

JR:  Of course as much as BP claims it would not like to see continued rapid growth in carbon pollution, the UK’s Independent reported last year, “Oil giant BP today signalled it would press on with a controversial Canadian tar sands project despite facing a showdown with environmental campaigners and shareholders.”

The tar sands are among the most carbon-intensive of replacements for conventional petroleum (see “Tar sands — Still dirty after all these years“):

X-axis is the range of potential resource in billions of barrels. Y-axis is grams of Carbon per MegaJoule of final fuel.

Related Posts:

• BP proves Beyond Petroleum was greenwashing, joins “biggest global warming crime ever seen”
• Memo to all: They ain’t “oil sands.”
• EPA slams State Department tar sands pipeline study

Climate Progress

Our guest blogger is Andy Rowell, writing for Oil Change International’s Price of Oil.

We are on the path to climate chaos, Big Oil has admitted. Both BP and Exxon have conceded that progress on climate change is totally insufficient to stabilize CO2 emissions. Both oil companies have just published their Energy Outlooks, and the outlook looks grim. In a bleak prognosis for success on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, BP admits in its new Energy Outlook 2030 report, which was published yesterday, that global CO2 emissions from energy will grow an average of 1.2 percent a year through 2030. In total, BP’s chief economist Christof Ruehl predicts “to the best of our knowledge,” CO2 emissions will rise by 27 percent over the next two decades, meaning an increase of about 33bn tons. All this does not bode well for climate change, with even Bob Dudley calling the scenarios a “wake-up call“:

I need to emphasize that this is a projection, not a proposition. It is our dispassionate view of what we believe is most likely to happen on the basis of the evidence. For example, we are not as optimistic as others about progress in reducing carbon emissions. But that doesn’t mean we oppose such progress. As you probably know, BP has a 15 year record of calling for more action from governments, including the wide application of a carbon price. Our base case assumes that countries continue to make some progress on addressing climate change, based on the current and expected level of political commitment. But overall, for me personally, it is a wake-up call, not something any of us would like to see happening.

BP’s estimate is just higher than ExxonMobil, which believes that CO2 emissions will increase by 25 percent in 20 years, which, according to John Vidal, writing in the Guardian, in effect dismisses “hopes that runaway climate change can be arrested and massive loss of life prevented.”

These projections by BP and Exxon scientists are even gloomier the projections of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which projectst that energy-related CO2 emissions will “grow by 16 percent from 2009 to 2035.” Exxon argues that oil will still be king in 2030:

In 2030, fossil fuels remain the predominant energy source, accounting for nearly 80 percent of demand. Oil still leads, but natural gas moves into second place on very strong growth of 1.8% a year on average, particularly because of its position as a favored fuel for power generation. Other energy types – particularly nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels – will grow sharply, albeit from a smaller base. Nuclear and renewable fuels will see strong growth, particularly in the power-generation sector. By 2030, about 40 percent of the world’s electricity will be generated by nuclear and renewable fuels.

BP too has demand for fossil fuels rising: BP’s “base case” — or most likely projection — points to primary energy use growing by nearly 40 percent over the next twenty years, with 93% of the growth coming from non-OECD countries. The BP report argues that world energy growth over the next twenty years is expected to be dominated by emerging economies such as China, India, Russia and Brazil. Natural gas is also expected to be the fastest growing fossil fuel, with coal and oil losing market share as fossil fuels as a whole experience a slow decline in growth, falling from 83 percent to 64 percent. Coal will increase by 1.2 percent per year and by 2030 it is likely to provide virtually as much energy as oil, excluding biofuels.

There is some good news that energy diversification will continue. Between 2010 to 2030 the contribution to energy growth of renewables (solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels) is seen to increase from 5 to 18 percent.

What oil there is left is predominantly under OPEC control. OPEC’s share of global oil production is set to increase to 46%, a position not seen since 1977, the decade that saw the cartel preside over a series of oil shocks and shortages. In fact, 75 percent of all growth in oil reserves over the next two decades is expected to come from OPEC nations, which include Kuwait, Iran, Angola, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Nigeria.

Wonk Room

The Koch family put together the Tea Party movement and has surpassed Exxon Mobil in funding climate science disinformation and clean energy opposition.

This Think Progress cross-post is Part 2 of Lee Fang’s amazing interview with David Koch.

This week, ThinkProgress conducted an impromptu interview with David Koch — one of the richest men in America, co-owner of the conglomerate Koch Industries, and a top financier of right-wing front groups — after we found him leaving the swearing-in ceremony for Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). In the first part of the interview, Koch said that he “admire[s]” the Tea Party movement, and that “the rank and file are just normal people like us.” As ThinkProgress has detailed, Koch operatives orchestrated the first anti-Obama Tea Party protests, channeled Tea Party groups into increasing the Koch’s personal wealth, and organized Tea Parties for Republican campaigns and lobbying drives.

When we tried to speak to Koch — who never said he did not want to talk to us — his employee Tim Phillips, president of Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, tried to push ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes away and yelled into the camera Keyes was holding. Phillips is a prolific “astroturf” lobbyist who has worked for Jack Abramoff’s forced-abortion sweatshop clients, Enron, and had a hand in an anti-Semitic campaign against Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) first bid for Congress. Despite Phillips’ distractions, Koch answered several of our questions about climate science and global warming.

Asked why Koch’s Americans for Prosperity focuses so much on denying climate change, Koch said it was because “regulating CO2 excessively … really damage[s] the economy.” Koch however was hesitant to answer if he himself believes in climate change. He eventually denied anthropogenic global warming by giving a standard climate denier response: “Climate does fluctuate. It goes from hot to cold. We have ice ages.” However, he simply shrugged when asked if carbon pollution — like the carbon pollution Koch Industries heavily contributes to — affects climate change:

FANG: Why does Americans for Prosperity focus so much on the science of climate change? I’m just curious why they spread so much information that denies the existence of climate, of global warming?

KOCH: Well… I think it’s uh, regulating CO2 excessively is going to put — uh really damage the economy.

FANG: Do you believe in climate change yourself? […] Do you believe in climate change yourself, Mr. Koch?

KOCH: Climate does fluctuate. It goes from hot to cold. We have ice ages.

FANG: But do you believe carbon pollution affects climate change? [Koch shrugs]

Watch it:

It is doubtful that Koch, who was educated at MIT, seriously believes that climate simply “fluctuate[s]” from “hot to cold” (although the exhibit Koch funded at the Smithsonian perpetuates this lie). Rather, Koch understands that his entire business model depends on denying the greatest threat facing the planet.

Koch Industries — the largest private corporation in America — thrives on emitting carbon pollution and other forms of pollution for free. Much of Koch Industries’ $ 120 billion-a-year revenues are derived from burning fossil fuels: oil refineries and pipelines, chemical plants, fertilizer plants, manufacturing factories, and the shipping of coal. Moreover, Koch Industries owns Georgia Pacific, one of the largest timber companies, so Koch also contributes to global warming by decreasing the world’s carbon sink capacity. The National Academy of Sciences, the US Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all come to the same conclusion: “that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and the loss of carbon-sink capacity in heavily timbered forests are increasing temperatures and making oceans more acidic.” Corporate documents revealed by ThinkProgress show that Koch Industries explicitly targeted laws to reduce carbon emissions as a threat to Koch’s bottom line.

To boost their profits, Koch is the largest funder of climate change denying organizations and media outlets in the world. For example, Koch bankrolls denier groups like the CATO Institute, Fraser Institute, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, the Manhattan Institute, the Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the State Policy Network, and dozens of others. Not only have Koch fronts instructed Tea Party groups to kill national legislation to address climate change, but Koch groups have been instrumental in pushing climate change-believers out of the Republican Party. As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has detailed, the vast majority of new Republicans in Congress are “climate zombies.” Koch Industries is so fervently anti-climate science that it recently filed a lawsuit claiming that a belief in global warming damages its reputation.

Koch’s active role in Republican politics and multifaceted propaganda campaigns are almost always tied to Koch Industries’ business interests. Koch’s assistance to then-Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) resulted in special legislation to exempt Koch from prosecution regarding an oil spill, and Koch’s efforts to elect President Bush were rewarded with a virtual pardon of charges related to Koch’s release of carcinogenic chemicals in Texas. Koch groups also worked to derail international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, and Koch-funded groups helped spread the myth that hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit somehow disputed the scientific consensus on climate change.

Of course, Koch’s current war on climate science is not new. As we first reported, Koch’s current campaign to distort the public’s understanding of global warming is a continuation of its campaign in 1990 to spread skepticism about acid rain. However, Koch’s hidden role in the climate denying machine is beginning to unravel.

– Lee Fang, in a Think Progress cross-posted.

Related Post:

• From promoting acid rain to climate denial — over 20 years of David Koch’s polluter front groups
• What we’re up against: Polluter-funded Tea Party climate zombie astroturfing
• Must-see video: Polluter-funded Smithsonian exhibit whitewashes danger of human-caused climate change

• Pollutocrat billionaire David Koch says Tea Party “rank and file are just normal people like us”

Climate Progress

This is Part 2 of a three-part installment of ThinkProgress’ interview with David Koch. Watch Part 1 here.

This week, ThinkProgress conducted an impromptu interview with David Koch — one of the richest men in America, co-owner of the conglomerate Koch Industries, and a top financier of right-wing front groups — after we found him leaving the swearing-in ceremony for Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). In the first part of the interview, Koch said that he “admire[s]” the Tea Party movement, and that “the rank and file are just normal people like us.” As ThinkProgress has detailed, Koch operatives orchestrated the first anti-Obama Tea Party protests, channeled Tea Party groups into increasing the Koch’s personal wealth, and organized Tea Parties for Republican campaigns and lobbying drives.

When we tried to speak to Koch — who never said he did not want to talk to us — his employee Tim Phillips, president of Koch’s Americans for Prosperity, tried to push ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes away and yelled into the camera Keyes was holding. Phillips is a prolific “astroturf” lobbyist who has worked for Jack Abramoff’s forced-abortion sweatshop clients, Enron, and had a hand in an anti-Semitic campaign against Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) first bid for Congress. Despite Phillips’ distractions, Koch answered several our questions about climate science and global warming.

Asked why Koch’s Americans for Prosperity focuses so much on denying climate change, Koch said it was because “regulating CO2 excessively … really damage[s] the economy.” Koch however was hesitant to answer if he himself believes in climate change. He eventually denied anthropogenic global warming by giving a standard climate denier response: “Climate does fluctuate. It goes from hot to cold. We have ice ages.” However, he simply shrugged when asked if carbon pollution — like the carbon pollution Koch Industries heavily contributes to — affects climate change:

FANG: Why does Americans for Prosperity focus so much on the science of climate change? I’m just curious why they spread so much information that denies the existence of climate, of global warming?

KOCH: Well… I think it’s uh, regulating CO2 excessively is going to put — uh really damage the economy.

FANG: Do you believe in climate change yourself? […] Do you believe in climate change yourself, Mr. Koch?

KOCH: Climate does fluctuate. It goes from hot to cold. We have ice ages.

FANG: But do you believe carbon pollution affects climate change? [Koch shrugs]

Watch it:

It is doubtful that Koch, who was educated at MIT, seriously believes that climate simply “fluctuate[s]” from “hot to cold” (although the exhibit Koch funded at the Smithsonian perpetuates this lie). Rather, Koch understands that his entire business model depends on denying the greatest threat facing the planet.

Koch Industries — the largest private corporation in America — thrives on emitting carbon pollution and other forms of pollution for free. Much of Koch Industries’ $ 120 billion-a-year revenues are derived from burning fossil fuels: oil refineries and pipelines, chemical plants, fertilizer plants, manufacturing factories, and the shipping of coal. Moreover, Koch Industries owns Georgia Pacific, one of the largest timber companies, so Koch also contributes to global warming by decreasing the world’s carbon sink capacity. The National Academy of Sciences, the US Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all come to the same conclusion: “that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and the loss of carbon-sink capacity in heavily timbered forests are increasing temperatures and making oceans more acidic.” Corporate documents revealed by ThinkProgress show that Koch Industries explicitly targeted laws to reduce carbon emissions as a threat to Koch’s bottom line.

To boost their profits, Koch is the largest funder of climate change denying organizations and media outlets in the world. For example, Koch bankrolls denier groups like the CATO Institute, Fraser Institute, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, the Manhattan Institute, the Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the State Policy Network, and dozens of others. Not only have Koch fronts instructed Tea Party groups to kill national legislation to address climate change, but Koch groups have been instrumental in pushing climate change-believers out of the Republican Party. As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has detailed, the vast majority of new Republicans in Congress are “climate zombies.” Koch Industries is so fervently anti-climate science that it recently filed a lawsuit claiming that a belief in global warming damages its reputation.

Koch’s active role in Republican politics and multifaceted propaganda campaigns are almost always tied to Koch Industries’ business interests. Koch’s assistance to then-Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) resulted in special legislation to exempt Koch from prosecution regarding an oil spill, and Koch’s efforts to elect President Bush were rewarded with a virtual pardon of charges related to Koch’s release of carcinogenic chemicals in Texas. Koch groups also worked to derail international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, and Koch-funded groups helped spread the myth that hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit somehow disputed the scientific consensus on climate change.

Of course, Koch’s current war on climate science is not new. As we first reported, Koch’s current campaign to distort the public’s understanding of global warming is a continuation of its campaign in 1990 to spread skepticism about acid rain. However, Koch’s hidden role in the climate denying machine is beginning to unravel.

ThinkProgress

The state of Texas has decided it doesn’t think greenhouse gases are a problem.  The Lone Star State has decided it will not obey the EPA’s ruling that the Supreme Court confirmed in 2007 that greenhouse gases are a pollutant, and has filed for an injunction against EPA rules that take effect today.  The injunction that the state filed last month was turned down flatly, so Texas is filing again.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state was determined to fight the EPA’s intentions, saying that Congress had rejected such carbon rules but the EPA was now trying to legislate them itself through administrative rules.

“Texas law does not currently deem greenhouse gases to be pollutants,” Abbott said. “Once again, the federal government is overreaching, and improperly intruding upon the state of Texas and its legal rights.”

Backed by a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the EPA issued a finding last year that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare.

Since then the agency has moved forward with developing rules under the Clean Air Act to limit emissions blamed for climate change. Beginning January 2, EPA will require large emitters such as power plants, refineries and cement makers to obtain permits for polluting greenhouse gases.

EPA also said it will issue permits for Texas, which has refused to adopt rules for emissions. Opponents of the climate rules say they will hurt the economy and kill jobs.

Earlier this year, Abbott said, EPA indicated it would give states one year to implement new greenhouse gas limits before taking control of permits.

“Today, the EPA said that, rather than giving Texas even a year, it would unilaterally take over the state’s air permitting responsibilities on January 2, 2011,” Abbott said.

The petition asks the appeals court to step in immediately and halt the EPA’s “exercise in administrative fiat.”

Hey Texas?

Don’t like it?

Leave.

Bunch of folks decided 150 years ago that would be a pretty good idea.  Didn’t work out so well.  You don’t want to play by federal law?  The other 49 states would like Texas’s federal money back.  Lord knows we need it.  Real simple solution to this.  Supreme Court settled this four years ago. 

We’d like our border agents back, too.  We’ll need them to patrol to keep you guys from heading north.

Go for it.

Zandar Versus The Stupid

We’ll start off with the question, is light actually “pollution”? Or is simply a result of living a modern lifestyle, so that people can go out after dark, instead of huddling and hiding in shacks against the predators of the night? Anyhow, once again, a good, sensible idea is taken to Stupid

The push to turn down the lights in American cities is gaining broad support from several unlikely allies — from conservationists and builders to city planners and the military.

Dark-sky legislation — laws requiring such measures as shielding outdoor lighting to reduce light pollution — has been embraced by about 300 counties, cities and towns.

More than 50 state bills have been introduced in the past two years, and seven were enacted. Eighteen states —Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming — have adopted dark-sky legislation in recent years, according to Bob Parks, executive director of the Tucson-based International Dark-Sky Association

From an aesthetic viewpoint, this is not actually that bad of an idea. The military supports it, especially in Texas, as the story goes on to point out, because it is hard to simulate what it’s like to fight in a 3rd world guano hole, sorry, developing nation, especially from the air. And, hey, it’s wonderful to look up at the stars and see lots and lots of stars. And there is nothing wrong with saving some energy and money, especially when it is your tax dollars. Aiming lights, especially ones like street lights, downwards, will reduce the overall amount of light needed, and reduce energy costs. One article I read about this a few months ago discussed putting inexpensive shields over street lights that will reflect most of the light that is lost with current types downward, lighting a broader area. Overall, a good idea. Nothing wrong with energy efficiency, reduced costs, a more revealing skyline, and not messing with wildlife nighttime patterns.

Buuuuuuuuuut, of course, that really isn’t why the mostly liberal groups have pushed this meme, and labeled it “pollution”

“It’s a broad environmental issue, and it’s also a safety issue,” Parks says. “It’s a pure waste of energy, dollars, and it contributes to greenhouse emissions. … For every watt of electricity used needlessly, somewhere a coal power plant is generating that electricity.”

Our old friend climate alarmism. So, of course, what we need is ……. more government regulation!

Smaller cities have been more aggressive in changing outdoor lighting laws. Southampton, N.Y., recently passed an ordinance after more than a two-year tug of war that pitted environmentalists against citizens concerned about safety. The law sets wattage limits and the hours that outdoor lights can be left on.

“Cities and local governments can adopt policies … but it’s more forceful if the state legislature comes in,” says Melissa Savage, program director in Washington for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Yay, government! Unshockingly, these enviro-weenies want to put a nebulous, cult like belief in man-induced global warming, and not messing up the sleep patterns of squirrels, over the safety of citizens. Is it any wonder that liberal cities tend to have much more violence and crime than conservative cities? I blame……Jonn Lilyea and Allahpundit, who both live in Big Cities, which have tons of streetlights.

PS: It’ll be fun when the alarmists whine about not being able to go out at night to their big fundraisers because it is too dangerous, thanks to reduced ambient light at night. They’ll certainly be the first ones mugged: predators tend to prey on the weak.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Stop The ACLU

Desolate Wrangel Island, which is north of Siberia, is so remote that it was the last place on Earth where the woolly mammoth lived-it hung on there to 2,000 BC.

Four thousand years later, the Soviet military came to Wrangel, and left a toxic mess. English Russia has some disturbing photographs, along with some uplifting images with owls, arctic foxes, and of course, polar bears.

Technorati tags: environment Russia pollution green ecology siberia polar bears owls foxes nature arctic

Marathon Pundit

Amanda Carey

In a blatant piece of coal-industry propaganda, the Daily Caller claimed limits on global warming pollution “will drastically increase costs for the majority of Americans who get their heat generated from coal.” The Daily Caller’s Amanda Carey rewrote a press release from the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a polluter front group, that tried to shift blame for the struggles of millions of Americans to keep warm this winter onto the Environmental Protection Agency:

“With millions of Americans unemployed and struggling to keep their homes warm, the need for government assistance will only increase,” said Deneen Borelli of the National Center for Public Policy’s Project21. “Heavy demand and higher prices due to the Obama Administration’s assault on the fossil fuels we rely upon are going to stretch charities to their limits and beyond,” she said in a press release. Borelli went on to say that “By having the EPA regulate carbon emissions, [EPA Administrator] Lisa Jackson is laying the foundation for the 2010 version of bread lines by supporting efforts that will raise energy costs.”

“Environmental Protection Agency regulations could make it difficult for Americans to stay warm this winter,” Carey writes. In fact, EPA rules on greenhouse pollution aren’t scheduled to be implemented until 2012, and rules limiting pollution can actually lead to lower utility bills. Somehow, Carey and Borelli fail to mention the real reason that most Americans are now suffering while the super-rich take home record profits: the deregulatory Bush economy that has rewarded Wall Street speculators, rapacious bankers, and fossil fuel polluters at the expense of everyone else. Meanwhile, Republicans filibustered tax cuts for the middle class, tried to slash funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and have successfully stalled the Cash for Caulkers program to make homes more energy efficient.

Carey ties the NCPPR defense of coal pollution to “reports predicting brutally-cold weather to envelop much of the U.S. in the coming weeks.” It is absolutely true that winters can be cold, and that global warming has increased the frequency of extremes. Overall, winters in the United States have become milder, but with more extreme storms and temperature swings. Even as parts of the United States are seeing record cold, the Southwest is experiencing record-breaking heat. The Daily Caller unjustifiably raised the question of the potential costs of limiting coal pollution without considering the costs of the pollution itself. Traditional coal pollution already kills about 10,000 Americans a year — disproportionately the young, elderly, and poor. As global warming accelerates, the deaths and damages from our degraded climate will only compound that suffering.

Wonk Room

Climate Progress

This is a re-post by WRI’s John Larsen is part of CP’s series on EPA’s highly cost-effective, science-based efforts to preserve clean air, clean water, and a livable climate for our kids.

After years of delay, EPA gets back on track in issuing rules that provide a path to a cleaner power fleet.

After years of delay, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to reduce dangerous and toxic pollutants released to the air and water by electric power plants, as required by the Clean Air Act and other statutes. Four key points about EPA’s actions are clear:

• Contrary to assertions by industry groups, EPA is pursuing a realistic timeline over the next decade to bring the electric power industry into compliance with the law.
• In most cases the electric power sector has been on notice for several years (in some cases several decades) that these pollutants would be regulated.
• Without new regulations, these pollutants will continue to impair America’s waterways, heat the planet, perpetuate acid rain, and lead to preventable hospital visits and premature deaths.
• In each of its rulemakings, EPA provides for an extensive, open public process based on evidence. This leads to more robust and fair rules for the electric power sector. As EPA finalizes each rule, it will establish an increasingly clear pathway for investments in an American electric generation fleet for the 21st century.

EPA, Greenhouse Gases, and the U.S. Economy

As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses its authority to limit greenhouse gases and other pollutants, members of Congress are wondering what these rules mean for the people and industries in their states. In this series, the non-partisan World Resources Institute examines pending actions and what they mean for the U.S. economy:

• What Are Limits on EPA? Clean Air Act Holds Answers
• EPA, The Clean Air Act, and U.S. Manufacturing
• For EPA Regulations, Cost Predictions Are Overstated
• Response to EEI’s Timeline of Environmental Regulations For the Utility Industry

The Wall Street Journal and executives major electric power corporations have frequently suggested that EPA’s regulatory timeline is unworkable¹. The largest industry trade group, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) has produced a slide that purports to display an onslaught of new requirements for power plants.² EEI has been distributing this slide widely on Capitol Hill where it presumably hopes to win lawmakers’ support for additional delays in EPA regulation or even a stripping of EPA’s authority.

The EPA regulatory process is far from a “train wreck.” EEI’s misleading timeline, reproduced in Figure 1, mostly consists of procedural events and activities that will not impose a direct compliance obligation on power plants. This serves only to spread confusion about EPA’s actual regulatory schedule.

Figure 1: Reproduction of original EEI timeline

WRI has identified four categories of EPA activities on the EEI timeline that are potentially misleading. When these activities are removed, only the timing of actual new compliance obligations is left. In Figure 2, “X”s (color coded for each filter in the screening process) have been applied to remove events from the figure that are not consequential from a compliance standpoint. The screening filters are as follows:

1. (Blue X’s) Rules that have been remanded or vacated by court decisions that do not impose compliance obligations.
2. (Green X’s) Rules that are already in effect representing compliance obligations that already exist; there are no new requirements imposed by these rules.
3. (Purple X’s) Public input through the rulemaking process (leads to more robust and fair rules for the electric power sector, and should not be conflated with new compliance obligations).
4. (Red X’s) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) rules for various pollutants that set standards for states to achieve. They do not establish new requirements for electric generation units.³

Figure 2: Environmental Regulatory Requirements For the Utility Industry, Removing All But New Compliance Obligations

Figure 3 shows a more accurate picture of the timeline for new requirements applicable to electric power plants.

Figure 3: Regulatory Compliance Obligations for the Utility Industry

EPA is carrying out the intent of Congress (through the passage of the bipartisan Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments) to clean the nation’s air and water. These rules can help the United States transition to cleaner and more efficient power plants, by establishing a clear pathway for investments in an electric generation fleet for the 21st century.

The CAA requires EPA and states to regulate and reduce harmful pollutants from major emissions sources including power plants. To date, this framework has delivered substantial improvements in air quality and significant public health benefits estimated between $ 77 and $ 519 billion annually⁴. Over the next decade, power plants will be subject to new rules under the CAA as well as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to control substances that cause serious health problems and substantial damage to America’s natural resources. These rules will take effect after long lead times. In most cases industry has been on notice for years that these pollutants would be regulated.

The electric power sector has had substantial notice—in some cases for decades—that power plants would be subject to regulations to control dangerous pollutants.

Half of the regulations under consideration by EPA have been in the regulatory pipeline for over a decade. Due to administrative delays and litigation resulting in court decisions remanding or vacating previous rules, many of these rules have not been finalized or the final rules were reversed. In many cases Congress has set statutory deadlines for EPA to act, EPA has missed the deadlines, and courts have ordered EPA to act. Table 1 outlines the amount of time the electric sector has had to prepare for new regulations.

The case of mercury from power plants provides a good example of how much regulatory lag-time there has been for the electric power industry to prepare for new pollutant rules. The CAA required EPA to study mercury and other hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from electric power plants and determine whether or not regulating these emissions would be necessary and appropriate. In 2000, EPA determined that regulations were appropriate effectively putting the electric power industry on notice that controls on mercury would be required. EPA then proposed and finalized rules (including the Clean Air Mercury Rule) that were ultimately vacated by the courts, which found that EPA had not acted within the constraints on of the CAA. EPA now intends to issue revised draft and final rules in accordance with CAA requirements in 2011. Compliance obligations would take effect in 2015.

Thus, the electric power industry has had 15 years to prepare, from the determination in 2000 to the expected date of compliance obligations in 2015.

Finalizing regulations provides certainty.

Finalizing regulation removes uncertainty that might otherwise stymie new investments. The ultimate stringency and compliance obligations for most of the regulations EPA is pursuing will remain uncertain until rules are final. The statutes – RCRA, CWA and the CAA – establish which pollutants will be subject to regulation and the relevant legal standards; the specifics are established during the EPA rulemakings. The longer it takes EPA to finalize new pollutant rules, the longer plant operators face uncertainty as to what will be required.

Not all EPA actions will create new regulatory regimes.

It is important to note that some EPA rules do not constitute new regulatory programs. For example, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from power plants have been covered by cap-and-trade programs that began in 1995. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions were the subject of a cap-and-trade program covering plants in the eastern half of the country since at least 2003. The Clean Air Interstate Rule and its successor, the Transport Rule, extend NOx cap-and-trade to new states and increase the stringency of requirements for units already subject to the cap-and-trade for NOx and SO2. Power plant operators are familiar with these regulatory frameworks and are familiar with their operation. While increasing the stringency of these rules may require additional investments in control strategies, there is no fundamentally new requirement in play.

The EPA regulatory process provides opportunities for industry input.

There are few, if any surprises in the very public and largely transparent EPA regulatory process. Multiple events must take place before any actual compliance obligation is imposed on an electric power plant or any other regulated entity. The EPA must issue proposed rules and seek public comment. Some rulemakings are initiated with advanced notices of proposed rulemaking, so that the process has extra opportunities for industry and public comment, and some start with studies that are conducted with public input and comment. This process allows the electric power industry to have substantial input into the shape of new regulations and allows the industry to better understand what may be required of them by EPA when rules are finalized. Fears of agency overreach are misplaced given the built-in limitations on EPA’s authority contained in the CAA.

Often rules are litigated; one outcome can be to send the rule back to EPA for further work. Many of EPA’s rules are issued on schedules established by the federal courts – because EPA has already missed the statutory deadline for promulgation. Only the final rule imposes a direct compliance obligation – after which there are practical implications for power plant owners and operators as they make investments in their generation fleets.

Why is EPA regulating power plants at all?

EPA is responding to direction from Congress to reduce the human health and environmental effects of mercury (as well as other HAPs), SO2, NOx, greenhouse gases (GHGs), coal ash, cooling water intake and discharge, industrial water effluent. Mercury is a neurotoxin that causes brain damage. SO2 and NOX cause acid rain, regional haze and can cause or worsen asthma and aggravate cardio-pulmonary disease leading to increased hospital visits and premature death. A recent example of the dangers of coal ash was the major spill of ash at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston plant in 2008 where irresponsible containment of coal ash caused waterways and communities to be inundated with waste. Electric power plants are major sources of many pollutants that EPA is regulating or intends to regulate.

Electric power plants are a major source of pollutants that substantially contribute to ongoing public health and environmental problems that impose real costs to the economy. When just air pollutants are considered, electric power plants represent the following shares of total U.S. emissions in 2005:

• 70 percent of SO2 emissions
• 50 percent of mercury emissions
• 34 percent of GHG emissions
• 18 percent of NOX emissions

By controlling these emissions using appropriate regulations under clear statutory authority EPA will go a long way towards meeting its mandate to protect public health and welfare. The electric power industry has had substantial time to prepare for regulations and once rules are final the industry will have a clear regulatory roadmap to guide investments. Misleading charts that exaggerate EPA actions such as those distributed by EEI cause confusion that will only increase uncertainty for the electric power industry and jeopardize important efforts to protect public health.

• Download As Presentation (Powerpoint, 783 Kb)
• Download as a Fact Sheet (PDF, 5 pages, 810 Kb)

– John Larsen is a senior associate in the climate and energy program at World Resources Institute.

Climate Progress

Fun chart from my colleagues:

What’s more, not only is intercity rail energy efficient compared to other means of transportation but it’s typically electricity which can be produced with much less pollution per unit of energy output. With automobiles, of course, we’re all looking forward to the future of electrification as well. But I’ve never heard anyone outline a remotely credible low-pollution alternative to jet fuel. Now obviously there are also distances across which rail doesn’t work as a credible alternative to air travel. But for shorter distance flights it’s important to understand that air travel is currently benefitting from a major unpriced externality in the form of air pollution. If we started taxing greenhouse gas pollution, then rail starts looking like a much better option on a range of short routes that are currently popular for air travel.

For example, today there seem to be almost 30 flights daily between Seattle and Portland. Clearly a lot of people are making the trip. If you built a high-speed rail connection, a lot of people would take that. But how many would obviously depend heavily on how the price compared to the price of those flights. And that in turn would have a great deal to do with how we price pollution.

Yglesias

In a front-page article in the New York Times, John Broder noted that opposition to the science of global warming has become “an article of faith” among Tea Party conservative activists. In addition to libertarians who believe “efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth,” others — prodded by the “preaching” of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, and others — use their Biblical faith to justify their denial of the destructive power of coal and oil pollution. Tea Party organizers in Rep. Baron Hill’s (D-IN) district told Broder their denial of pollution was consistent with the Bible’s teachings:

“I read my Bible. He made this earth for us to utilize.” — Norman Dennison, founder of the Corydon Tea Party

“Being a strong Christian, I cannot help but believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country and it’s not there to destroy us.” — Lisa Deaton, founder of We the People Indiana

Of course, the Bible teaches not only that earth’s bounty is a gift to humanity, but also that we must be its shepherds:

The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land. Lev. 25:23-24

I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable. Jer. 2:7

“These Tea Party people represent a fringe view not only in politics, but also in religion,” Rev. Dr. Susan Thistlethwaite, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Politics, tells the Wonk Room. “The majority of Christians and other people of faith are supportive of protecting the environment precisely because of their religious beliefs, including the belief in God as creator.”

Many Christians, across the spectrum from evangelical to mainline to progressive, as well as scientists, celebrated when a group of evangelicals issued a statement in 2006 called “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action.” This “biblically based moral witness” sets its theological claim for the urgency of climate change action in the biblical view of God as creator, and that damaging the creation is “an offense against God himself.”

“The world is less than it might be so long as human beings are less than they might be, since the capacity of human beings to shape the material environment into a sign of justice and generosity is blocked by human selfishness,” Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said in 2009. “In the doomsday scenarios we are so often invited to contemplate, the ultimate tragedy is that a material world capable of being a manifestation in human hands of divine love is left to itself, as humanity is gradually choked, drowned or starved by its own stupidity.”

Religious leaders from Christian and other faiths are also mobilizing to fight big oil’s Proposition 23 effort kill California’s climate protection law. “My Christian faith calls me to care for my neighbor and all that God has created,” explained Rev. Dean W. Nelson, Bishop, Southwest California Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in a press announcement today. “Proposition 23 calls us to look back, not forward, and to cast a blind eye to the urgent consequences of our addiction to fossil fuels. These consequences include affects on human health, human-caused climate change and its threat to food and water supplies and densely populated coastal areas, and our economic vulnerability to global energy politics and prices.”

Wonk Room

Pat Toomey, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, agrees with Christine O’Donnell about global warming. Like O’Donnell and the rest of the GOP Senate candidates, Toomey questions the overwhelming scientific evidence that manmade pollution from burning billions of tons of oil and coal is warming the planet. “There is much debate in the scientific community as to the precise sources of global warming,” Toomey claimed in June, even though the National Academies of Science have explained that the “compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence.” Responding to a caller on WITF radio on Friday, Toomey expanded on his ignorance of scientific reality:

My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated.

Listen here:

“I just can’t see the argument for doing great economic damage, costing tens of thousands of jobs here in Pennsylvania, for a very uncertain gain, if any,” Toomey concluded, attacking policy to limit greenhouse pollution. Toomey’s top contributors include coal giant Murray Energy ($ 16,655) and Koch Industries ($ 15,000).

Think Progress

In an address to Green Mountain College on May 15, Carol Browner, Director of Energy and Climate Change Policy, stated “The sooner the U.S. puts a cap on our dangerous carbon pollution, the sooner we can create a new generation of clean energy jobs here in America…” In July, 2009, President Obama lauded the “Cash for Clunkers” program, stating that the initiative “gives consumers a break, reduces dangerous carbon pollution, and our dependence on foreign oil…” Unfortunately, our President is misinformed about carbon pollution.

The phrase “dangerous carbon pollution” has become standard propaganda from environmental groups. An example is a May, 2010 press release from the World Wildlife Fund that called for “a science-based limit on dangerous carbon pollution that will send a strong signal to the private sector.” Environmentalists have successfully painted a picture of black particle emissions into the atmosphere. This misconception is being used to drive efforts for Cap & Trade legislation, renewable energy, and every sort of restriction on our light bulbs, vehicles, and houses—all in the misguided attempt to stop climate change.

Carbon is integral to our skin, our muscles, our bones, and throughout the body of each person. Carbon forms more than 20% of the human body by weight. We are full of this “dangerous carbon pollution” by natural metabolic processes.

It’s true that incomplete combustion emits carbon particles that can cause smoke and smog. But this particulate carbon pollution is well controlled by the Clean Air Act of 1970 and many other federal and state statutes.

According to Environmental Protection Agency data, U.S. air quality today is significantly better than it was in 1980. Since 1980, airborne concentration of carbon monoxide is down 79%, lead is down 92%, nitrogen dioxide is down 46%, ozone is down 25%, and sulfur dioxide is down 71%. Carbon particulates have been tracked for fewer years, but PM10 particulates are down 31% since 1990 and PM2.5 particulates are down 19% since 2000. Over the same period, electricity consumption from coal-fired power plants rose 72% and vehicle miles driven are up 91%. We do not need Cap & Trade, Renewable Portfolio Standards, or the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), to reduce carbon particulates.

Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic, Figure 78, data from EPA, 2006

The target of “dirty carbon pollution” propaganda is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an invisible, odorless, harmless gas. It does not cause smog or smoke. Humans breathe out 100 times the CO2 we breathe in, created as our body uses sugars. But since it’s tough to call an invisible gas “dirty,” Climatists use “carbon” instead. It’s as wrong as calling water “hydrogen” or salt “chlorine.” Compounds have totally different properties than their composing elements.

Not only is carbon dioxide not a pollutant, it’s essential for life. As pointed out by geologist Leighton Steward, carbon dioxide is green! Carbon dioxide is plant food. Increased atmospheric CO2 causes plants and trees to grow faster and larger, increase their root systems, and improve their resistance to drought, as documented by hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Carbon dioxide is the best compound that mankind could put into the atmosphere to grow the biosphere.

This “carbon pollution” nonsense is driven by Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. In a debate at the Global Warming Forum at Purdue University on September 27, Dr. Susan Avery, President of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, was asked “What is the strongest empirical evidence that global warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions rather than natural causes?” Neither Dr. Avery nor Dr. Robert Socolow of Princeton, who also presented, could provide an answer, except the ambiguous “There is lots of evidence.” In fact, Climatism is based largely on computer model projections. There is no empirical evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming. According to Dr. Frederick Seitz, past President of the National Academy of Sciences, “Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”

As Joanne Nova, Australian author, points out: “Everything on your dinner table—the meat, cheese, salad, bread, and soft drink—requires carbon dioxide to be there. For those of you who believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant, we have a special diet: water and salt.” So the next time you drink a beer or eat a meal, beware of that “dangerous carbon pollution.”

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic.

Big Government

The rejection puts billions of dollars in transportation aid at risk.  How very odd that the federal government is beating up a state from so many directions.  Last time this happened was the Civil War.  Perhaps the 10th Amendment is about to be reinvigorated.  Republican governors tend to support their own – watch out, Herr Obama.

Liberty Pundits Blog